Replies

Again it took almost a century for one of those European countries to develop a modern democracy. So how were the French superior?

In my mind it depends more on the will of the people, the Iranians wanted a government based on Islam, and the leadership. The problem with Egypt was not a lack of desire for a secular democratic state, it was the choices they were provided. This whole Arab spring in Egypt began as a movement to get the Judiciary to separate itself from the Executive and provide honest justice for Egyptians. These reformers are educated and moderate. The Islamic Brotherhood will not be in control of that country once a stronger democratically motivated political party has the time to develop.

I am not George but, what he said isn't racist in the least, it is a matter of long standing cultures influenced by the environments in which they developed. Italy wasn't unified until I think 1860 or so. Before that it existed as fiercely competing regions and even city States (a form of). Germany was greatly fragmented until the "Holy Roman empire" was created in the 960's (I still don't remember the exact dates) out of several areas and Germany wasn't "Germany" until the German Confederation (a loose one) was formed in 1814, I do remember that date. The French...well that's too confusing for my Memory, Clovis, Charles Martel, Pepin the Short.... anyway they didn't become France until the late 900s either.

The point being there is a much longer history in northern Europe especially of actual consolidation of many States over time that lasted. Democratic principles that developed in Scandinavia, Northern Germany and in the British Isles (all tied together) allowed a longer history. And these principles were necessary to keep competing interests united. Most of the Middle East, and in Africa remained nomadic, despite competing Sultans or even Saladin the Great. There were no Iraqs, or Irans. There were no democratic developments in these regions. The rule by the Greeks, the Romans, the English, or the French and their institutions, were as foreign as could be.

culture and environment and the resulting history cannot be separated. It has nothing to do with race or ethnicity, all is a result of the environment and resulting culture. Outside influences come in that "color the edges" but the culture is really hard to change.

I find the assault on free thought disturbing,
I find the willingness to give it up frightening.

How about because majority non-white places like India, Hong Kong, Jamaica and Botswana are long-functioning representative states that have not been dictatorships since attaining independence - quasi-independent Hong Kong is especially noteworthy because it has resisted becoming just another part of China.

There are plenty of English heritage places that are not successful at representative self rule, but can you come up with examples of former French, Spanish or Portuguese colonies (aside from Macau) that have done that? None of the majority-white countries in Central and South America have managed it.

So again - what counts is culture and experience, which is not skin color. Nuture, not nature is another way to phrase it.

What is poppycock is the notion that societies that have not developed (over time) a culture that supports a democratic form of government can do so with ease in a short period. Ain't gonna happen.

Again it took almost a century for one of those European countries to develop a modern democracy. So how were the French superior?

Read more carefully. What I said is that France is a good example of it taking a long time for the concepts to take root.

In my mind it depends more on the will of the people, the Iranians wanted a government based on Islam, and the leadership. The problem with Egypt was not a lack of desire for a secular democratic state, it was the choices they were provided. This whole Arab spring in Egypt began as a movement to get the Judiciary to separate itself from the Executive and provide honest justice for Egyptians. These reformers are educated and moderate. The Islamic Brotherhood will not be in control of that country once a stronger democratically motivated political party has the time to develop.

People get the form of government they deserve. Egypt is demonstrating that "democracy" there means "I get my way or I will not follow the rules". None of the parties - especially not the military - shows any sign of becoming a loyal opposition.

And if the people of Iran or Afghanistan or Whosiwatitzstan want (or are willing to live in) a jackbooted Islamist state that's fine too, as long as they do not attack us or our allies, or shelter those who do.

What is poppycock is the notion that societies that have not developed (over time) a culture that supports a democratic form of government can do so with ease in a short period. Ain't gonna happen.

Which is why saying that it can't happen in the Arab world based on these short term results is also poppy ****.

'I've spoken of the Shining City all my political life. …In my mind it was a tall, proud city built on rocks stronger than oceans, windswept, God-blessed, and teeming with people of all kinds living in harmony and peace; a city with free ports that hummed with commerce and creativity. And if there had to be city walls, the walls had doors and the doors were open to anyone with the will and the heart to get here. That's how I saw it, and see it still.'" Ronald Reagan

I can't believe George of all people is being accused of racism and/or cultural blindness. He has lived and worked in some of these countries that are the subject of this thread.

For whatever reason, Liberals have an almost unavoidable compulsion to waste their time and talents hunting for heretics among their own kind. What a useless distraction.

I did not call George a racist. I am saying that claiming one culture or ethnic group is incapable of achieving democracy while another can does reflect a cultural or racist bias.

'I've spoken of the Shining City all my political life. …In my mind it was a tall, proud city built on rocks stronger than oceans, windswept, God-blessed, and teeming with people of all kinds living in harmony and peace; a city with free ports that hummed with commerce and creativity. And if there had to be city walls, the walls had doors and the doors were open to anyone with the will and the heart to get here. That's how I saw it, and see it still.'" Ronald Reagan

Egypt is demonstrating that "democracy" there means "I get my way or I will not follow the rules". None of the parties - especially not the military - shows any sign of becoming a loyal opposition.

Maybe I am seeing this played out differently than you are. But that is not what I am seeing.

'I've spoken of the Shining City all my political life. …In my mind it was a tall, proud city built on rocks stronger than oceans, windswept, God-blessed, and teeming with people of all kinds living in harmony and peace; a city with free ports that hummed with commerce and creativity. And if there had to be city walls, the walls had doors and the doors were open to anyone with the will and the heart to get here. That's how I saw it, and see it still.'" Ronald Reagan

'I've spoken of the Shining City all my political life. …In my mind it was a tall, proud city built on rocks stronger than oceans, windswept, God-blessed, and teeming with people of all kinds living in harmony and peace; a city with free ports that hummed with commerce and creativity. And if there had to be city walls, the walls had doors and the doors were open to anyone with the will and the heart to get here. That's how I saw it, and see it still.'" Ronald Reagan

For whatever reason, Liberals have an almost unavoidable compulsion to waste their time and talents hunting for heretics among their own kind. What a useless distraction.

Two things, I don't see how this subject can be construed as liberal vs conservative nor is ethnic or racial bias. Unless you believe that conservatives tend to favor ethnic and racial bias.

Also are you really going to say that the search for heretics, not that I believe that is what is being done here, is peculiar to liberals? Can I direct you to the nearest tea party rally?

'I've spoken of the Shining City all my political life. …In my mind it was a tall, proud city built on rocks stronger than oceans, windswept, God-blessed, and teeming with people of all kinds living in harmony and peace; a city with free ports that hummed with commerce and creativity. And if there had to be city walls, the walls had doors and the doors were open to anyone with the will and the heart to get here. That's how I saw it, and see it still.'" Ronald Reagan

Maybe in a hundred years or so they will come up with something better.

I'll say it again, environment, culture and time. You can't minimize how strong this is.

This is exactly what I have been saying, but some choose to skip over that part. Although Tim D disagreed the last time I said it, representative democracy in the modern sense began with the Magna Carta. That was many centuries ago; what we have today evolved over time and not without some backsliding (Cromwell and all that).

I'll give a serious answer, although I think you are pulling my leg by playing the innocent.

In a nutshell, using a scale of zero to ten, far left to far right, post WW II Donkey tent dwellers ranged from about eight to about four (zero on civil rights if you go back to Dixiecrat days) and the Elephant tent dwellers from about six to about about two (zero if you count the Birchers). Those were the days when politics stopped at the water's edge and we governed from the center by compromise and negotiation.

The range for Democrats still is about the same, perhaps a bit less room on the left, but the GOP nowadays won't tolerate anyone left of dead center.

Think of Republicans like John Dewey, Ike, Nixon (gasp), Rockefeller, Everett Dirksen, Jake Javits, Kenneth Keating, Earl Warren, and Edward Brooke. None would fit in today's Republican Party. If you look at what he did rather than the mythology, Reagan would be a hard fit.

Aside from the "Segregation Forever" Dixiecrats I can't think of a nationally known post-WW II Democrat who would not feel comfortable, if perhaps not warmly welcome, in the current Party. If you can, I am open to persuasion that I am wrong about this.

I am not claiming that the current embarrassment we call "government" in Washington is solely the fault of Republicans, but I think it fair to say they have the larger share of blame.

Again it took almost a century for one of those European countries to develop a modern democracy. So how were the French superior?

In my mind it depends more on the will of the people, the Iranians wanted a government based on Islam, and the leadership. The problem with Egypt was not a lack of desire for a secular democratic state, it was the choices they were provided. This whole Arab spring in Egypt began as a movement to get the Judiciary to separate itself from the Executive and provide honest justice for Egyptians. These reformers are educated and moderate. The Islamic Brotherhood will not be in control of that country once a stronger democratically motivated political party has the time to develop.

Chris,

It wasn't just a desire for an Islamic government in the case of Iran. They had a democratically elected government in the 50's that was overthrown by Britain and the US. Their Islamic revolution was in response to a western installed puppet regime that had no regard for human rights. For someone, in the light of this reality, to argue that the issue is cultural or Anglo-Saxon/Nordic-nish is the height of folly. The Egyptians wanted democracy before and it was in the form of the Muslim brotherhood - remember it is a country's right to determine their government - instead they got Hosni Mubarak; a western puppet.

To answer your second point, the Muslim brotherhood has been moving to the 'centre' in order to attract votes and increase their popularity. If the Egyptian military ever gets out of the way, it will be interesting to see how the vote goes.

Its a shame that the freedom agenda does not include Bahrain, Saudi and Jordan.

No. But what IS particular to liberals is that the best and brightest among them engage in it. Hell, you're doing it right now.

I guess the issue with me is that I am a true egalitarian that bristles at the thought that any group of people is incapable of doing anything. That is not being a liberal, that is being me.

'I've spoken of the Shining City all my political life. …In my mind it was a tall, proud city built on rocks stronger than oceans, windswept, God-blessed, and teeming with people of all kinds living in harmony and peace; a city with free ports that hummed with commerce and creativity. And if there had to be city walls, the walls had doors and the doors were open to anyone with the will and the heart to get here. That's how I saw it, and see it still.'" Ronald Reagan

It wasn't just a desire for an Islamic government in the case of Iran. They had a democratically elected government in the 50's that was overthrown by Britain and the US. Their Islamic revolution was in response to a western installed puppet regime that had no regard for human rights.

Yes but a huge part of that discontent with the Shah was that he allowed alcohol to be served and that he was not a good Muslim. Right or wrong, many Iranians at the time felt that you could not have true justice, and freedom, without sharia and religious adherence.

That is true with many today. In the total absence of justice and the rule of law, the fall back for many Muslims is sharia. However where I differ with George is that in an era of the internet, there is also a much larger and growing contingent that is both educated and liberal in their views and I believe it is that element that will eventually prevail in the Middle East and most likely in Egypt where the society is more urban and cosmopolitan.

I think while they do not possess a perfect democracy, who does, Turkey is a fine example of what can be accomplished.

I think where I may agree with George is that I do not believe in Islamic countries the emphasis on civil rights is the same as those of us with a western European tradition. Their philosophers seem to be more occupied with spiritual matters than those of human liberty. But that may be my own ignorance.

'I've spoken of the Shining City all my political life. …In my mind it was a tall, proud city built on rocks stronger than oceans, windswept, God-blessed, and teeming with people of all kinds living in harmony and peace; a city with free ports that hummed with commerce and creativity. And if there had to be city walls, the walls had doors and the doors were open to anyone with the will and the heart to get here. That's how I saw it, and see it still.'" Ronald Reagan

The illusion of America being a democracy is more of a carrot on a stick trick, thus hiding it's overt behind the scene motives. Rhenquists' reichquest back in '75 or '76 disregarded stolen absentee voting ballots by those that also steal & burn US Constitutions as if 2 times were an accident; therefore it doesn't matter to christians that claim it's a democracy, because it's irrelevant that the demagoguery of psychological warfare that christians claim is a religion, even though it's 2000+ years old Islamic practice only reinforces it. Doing the same in 2001 wasn't just a coincidence. Ever wonder many years ahead they've already mapped out elections to further their master plan agenda & keep the masses in the "matrix" ? Democracies don't happen overnight, but when it's just smoke being blown & if that doesn't work; physical warfare seems to be their answer to preserve the psychological warfare; the result is worse than a bad magicians slight of hand trick.

BTW I think I would like to, in political parlance, walk back my "racist" comment. Perhaps a better choice would be elitist. I still am resistant to the idea that unless you have a particular history that it is impossible to achieve democracy. Maybe I am a neocon after all. But I still hold out hope for these countries and my outlook is optimistic.

'I've spoken of the Shining City all my political life. …In my mind it was a tall, proud city built on rocks stronger than oceans, windswept, God-blessed, and teeming with people of all kinds living in harmony and peace; a city with free ports that hummed with commerce and creativity. And if there had to be city walls, the walls had doors and the doors were open to anyone with the will and the heart to get here. That's how I saw it, and see it still.'" Ronald Reagan

Yes but a huge part of that discontent with the Shah was that he allowed alcohol to be served and that he was not a good Muslim. Right or wrong, many Iranians at the time felt that you could not have true justice, and freedom, without sharia and religious adherence.

That is true with many today. In the total absence of justice and the rule of law, the fall back for many Muslims is sharia. However where I differ with George is that in an era of the internet, there is also a much larger and growing contingent that is both educated and liberal in their views and I believe it is that element that will eventually prevail in the Middle East and most likely in Egypt where the society is more urban and cosmopolitan.

I think while they do not possess a perfect democracy, who does, Turkey is a fine example of what can be accomplished.

I think where I may agree with George is that I do not believe in Islamic countries the emphasis on civil rights is the same as those of us with a western European tradition. Their philosophers seem to be more occupied with spiritual matters than those of human liberty. But that may be my own ignorance.

One of the problems with the Shah was serving alcohol, a bigger problem was his secret police and torture both supported by the west. How is it that the west supports civil rights at home but neglects to in these non Anglo Saxon countries? It still rings true today - Romney hasn't said much about the plight of Egyptians, his concern is mostly about American influence there.

At the heart of what I said is "nurture, not nature". Any group of people is capable of any form of governance, but changing from what is traditional takes time. Some traditions encourage democracy, others do not. That was what I meant in the comments about former colonies.

Our Founding Fathers considered themselves Englishmen and rebelled because they did not have the same rights as those in the mother country. The French revolution was about overturning an absolute monarch - the French third estate had few or no rights comparable to those of their English counterparts. Spain too had an absolute monarchy and precious few rights for those outside the nobility.

It was predictable that the United States would form a government based on individual rights and representation, one that has continued to evolve to where most citizens have the same rights. Compare this to what happened to the new nations of South America after the 19th century "Liberators" San Martin and Bolivar freed most of the continent from Spanish rule. They drew up constitutions modeled on ours or France, but quickly descended into what they knew best, despotism by he who could amass power and crush opposition. The 19th century Caudillos ruled like monarchs, or like the warlords in Somalia, Afghanistan and early 20th century China. The continent's 20th century was far from idyllic.

One of the problems with the Shah was serving alcohol, a bigger problem was his secret police and torture both supported by the west. How is it that the west supports civil rights at home but neglects to in these non Anglo Saxon countries? It still rings true today - Romney hasn't said much about the plight of Egyptians, his concern is mostly about American influence there.

Tim

Simple, we have a tradition, which really rang true under Reagan, of confusing capitalism with democracy.

'I've spoken of the Shining City all my political life. …In my mind it was a tall, proud city built on rocks stronger than oceans, windswept, God-blessed, and teeming with people of all kinds living in harmony and peace; a city with free ports that hummed with commerce and creativity. And if there had to be city walls, the walls had doors and the doors were open to anyone with the will and the heart to get here. That's how I saw it, and see it still.'" Ronald Reagan

At the heart of what I said is "nurture, not nature". Any group of people is capable of any form of governance, but changing from what is traditional takes time. Some traditions encourage democracy, others do not. That was what I meant in the comments about former colonies.

Our Founding Fathers considered themselves Englishmen and rebelled because they did not have the same rights as those in the mother country. The French revolution was about overturning an absolute monarch - the French third estate had few or no rights comparable to those of their English counterparts. Spain too had an absolute monarchy and precious few rights for those outside the nobility.

It was predictable that the United States would form a government based on individual rights and representation, one that has continued to evolve to where most citizens have the same rights. Compare this to what happened to the new nations of South America after the 19th century "Liberators" San Martin and Bolivar freed most of the continent from Spanish rule. They drew up constitutions modeled on ours or France, but quickly descended into what they knew best, despotism by he who could amass power and crush opposition. The 19th century Caudillos ruled like monarchs, or like the warlords in Somalia, Afghanistan and early 20th century China. The continent's 20th century was far from idyllic.

Okay this is interesting. I saw somewhere and I think there is a great deal of truth to this, that the difference was that unlike Spanish America, we had not truly assimilated the indigenous people into our culture and the reason why Bolivar and San Martin did not form liberal democracies was the fear of sharing power with the natives. That in a sense we benefited from not having adopted universal suffrage at the beginning of our democracy and from pushing native populations further west.

I also have heard that we are unique in that we are the only country with a strong executive branch that has not descended into dictatorship. That those countries that choose a parliamentary system are less likely to have that issue.

I think we got lucky in many ways because our first President was a man that did not desire personal power and set a great example for others to follow. If **** Cheney had been our First President, we would be living in a very different country.

I think you have an interesting point, one that I confess I did not fully understand or appreciate in reading your initial post.

'I've spoken of the Shining City all my political life. …In my mind it was a tall, proud city built on rocks stronger than oceans, windswept, God-blessed, and teeming with people of all kinds living in harmony and peace; a city with free ports that hummed with commerce and creativity. And if there had to be city walls, the walls had doors and the doors were open to anyone with the will and the heart to get here. That's how I saw it, and see it still.'" Ronald Reagan